Yes Voters to Lisbon, Do you want this to happen to your currency?

free-man

Please take 10 minutes to watch this video and decide for yourself if you want the banking elite to destroy our 'common' currency too..

Speech on the dollar

Answers why a lot of the Oil countries are switching denomination to the Euro..

At this point your probably thinking that Lisbon would've been great as we'd be part of a strong Europe with a strong currency..... right?

Not necessarily the case..

If a small family of bankers control the US currency what makes you think they won't do the same to the Euro when it suits them..

The following are a must see...

Banking Myth Explained Part 1

Banking Myth Explained Part 2

Banking Myth Explained Part 3

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

youtube, for when you're just too stoned to think properly.

free-man

Never smoked so can't identify with you...

Sounds like you didn't bother watching it.. oh well...

Time Magazine

"The Fed have been producing liquidity out of thin air and this makes the Dow Jones Industrial average rise."
The relationship is the other way around. Over time people come up with new ideas and technology advances. As a result the economy produces more and GDP rises. As a result there's economic activity to facilitate monetary expansion, "out of thin air".

"But if you divide this by the price of gold, real money in our opinion...."
If you divide the Dow by the price of curry chips in Abrakebabra, real money in my opinion, you get an equally stupid comparison.

Now read the rules of the forum, learn about economics, and when you're still posting stupid conspiracy theory crap suggesting Ireland is better off with its own monetary policy (which suggests you really don't know anything about Irish monetary policy), please go away.

ionix5891

:rolleyes: dude seriously come on :cool: what will all the tinfoil hat people coming out of the closet

yet another "lets leave the EU" threads around here


anyways you cant seriously compare the jolly olde europe to that backward monstrosity across the pond, when we start calling french fries liberty fries i will start to worry


anyways heres one for you if the oil prices switch to euro it will push the us economy further down the drain, wouldn't the conspiracy theorists like youself love when capitalist pigs get what they deserve?

free-man

Antithetic wrote: »

"The Fed have been producing liquidity out of thin air and this makes the Dow Jones Industrial average rise."
The relationship is the other way around. Over time people come up with new ideas and technology advances. As a result the economy produces more and GDP rises. As a result there's economic activity to facilitate monetary expansion, "out of thin air".

"But if you divide this by the price of gold, real money in our opinion...."
If you divide the Dow by the price of curry chips in Abrakebabra, real money in my opinion, you get an equally

Now read the rules of the forum, learn about economics, and when you're still posting stupid conspiracy theory crap suggesting Ireland is better off with its own monetary policy (which suggests you really don't know anything about Irish monetary policy), please go away.

I would never claim to be an expert on economics...

Are you discounting the entire piece or focusing on a small part? Is it true the dollar is losing its real value when compared to gold value?

I'm not sure what you think is conspiracy theory, from what I can see much of it is fact - that said I can't prove the industrial average piece.

If everyone disagrees then please close the thread but it might be an idea not to discount something you disagree with immediately in such a way..

ionix5891

free-man wrote: »

I would never claim to be an expert on economics...

Are you discounting the entire piece or focusing on a small part? Is it true the dollar is losing its real value when compared to gold value?

I'm not sure what you think is conspiracy theory, from what I can see much of it is fact - that said I can't prove the industrial average piece.

If everyone disagrees then please close the thread but it might be an idea not to discount something you disagree with immediately in such a way..

it is true that the dollar is loosing its value comapred to just about anything, alot of countries are realising the US is not as mighty as its made out to be so they are looking to the euro for a stable currency to do business in


its not a conspiracy theory that the Federal Reserver in US is a joke and is has nothing to do with the government and the name is very deceptive, you can read all about it on their wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve

but im not sure what does any of that has to do with EU...

free-man

ionix5891 wrote: »

:rolleyes: dude seriously come on :cool: what will all the tinfoil hat people coming out of the closet

wouldn't the conspiracy theorists like youself love when capitalist pigs get what they deserve?

I never once mentioned anything to do with lizards or aliens and I'm branded a tin foil hat wearer - love it!

The capitalist 'pigs' won't lose out.. you know that.. already they're selling up

ionix5891

free-man wrote: »

I never once mentioned anything to do with lizards or aliens and I'm branded a tin foil hat wearer - love it!

The capitalist 'pigs' won't lose out.. you know that.. already they're selling up

one of the main reasons for the dollar loosing so much value is because they printed way too much of it lately

bush financed the iraq war not by raising the taxes but by printing more money, the more of something you have the less its worth

theres no conspiracy just a series of very bad decisions that bush taught wouldn't bite in the ass until after hes out of the office

once again what does any of that have to do with the lisbon treaty? did you just wake up and realise we have this currency called euro and since Eurobashing is in season may as well make up another anti EU rant

sigh

Moriarty

Moved to conspiracy theories.

Sea Sharp

Answers why a lot of the Oil countries are switching denomination to the Euro..

At this point your probably thinking that Lisbon would've been great as we'd be part of a strong Europe with a strong currency..... right?

Not necessarily the case..

If a small family of bankers control the US currency what makes you think they won't do the same to the Euro when it suits them..

The following are a must see...

It's a little more complicated than that. All that'll happen is that the dollars unique advantage will be no more.
Plus, it says other countries are switching to currencies other than the euro aswell. What'll probably happen is that there will be no single world currency anymore. Rather a mix of euro, GB pounds, swiss francs etc..

It's pretty clear that the dollar is fcuked though. That's probably why they're talking about creating the Amero. Kind of a copy of the euro.

I don't see how the Lisbon treaty fits into this though..

free-man

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

It's a little more complicated than that. All that'll happen is that the dollars unique advantage will be no more.
Plus, it says other countries are switching to currencies other than the euro aswell. What'll probably happen is that there will be no single world currency anymore. Rather a mix of euro, GB pounds, swiss francs etc..

It's pretty clear that the dollar is fcuked though. That's probably why they're talking about creating the Amero. Kind of a copy of the euro.

I don't see how the Lisbon treaty fits into this though..

Doesn't matter now - i'm officially a looney

It would be interesting to hear some educated debate on the banking videos however, someone.. anyone to refute that these banks can create money in the manner described..

ionix5891

once again they do print money whenever they want, this is not new news (Well maybe for you),

paper money is only worth what we as a society agree its worth and are willing to pay for it

theres not enough gold in the world to go back to gold as money either

free-man

Ok - I can see a lot of negative reaction to certain videos being posted on boards and general dislike for 'conspiracy theories'.

I would prefer not to be tainted with this label and would prefer not to get banned from boards for posting content which was quite startling to me once I discovered it and looking for some genuine feedback on it.

I will re-iterate this request now..

Could someone (with relevant knowledge) please explain the core tenets of the above videos and point out any mis-information which is being 'peddled'.

If there is no mis information I would stand behind my original assertion that this information is quite startling and I would not be entirely foolish to be concerned that certain governments are not entirely 'free' in their decision making process.

If for example the US government does not control the economy (or at the very least do not own full control) and vested interests do, it would explain a lot of the strange decisions of the IMF, World Banks etc as George Monbiot writes.

The above paragraph is an indication of personal suspicion and is not me making any radical claims - so no need to get trigger happy (mods).

In summary, I would be indebted to a decent and balanced explanation of the above content rather than any ridiculing one liners of my display of 'ignorance' on the mint etc.

Many thanks..

biko

Antithetic wrote: »

"But if you divide this by the price of gold, real money in our opinion...."
If you divide the Dow by the price of curry chips in Abrakebabra, real money in my opinion, you get an equally stupid comparison.

Well, gold was used by everyone to measure wealth up until 1970. Surprising you think that's stupid.

Robert Newman, a History of Oil has a funny analogy. Something with Salvador Dali. A bit more here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o-G_s_uKlo

Time Magazine

biko wrote: »

Well, gold was used by everyone to measure wealth up until 1970. Surprising you think that's stupid.

Why is gold more useful than curry chips?

I'm intending on spending the day playing guitar and watching TV. If I instead decide (out of thin air) to go out and work, that affects national income which is exchanged in money. If money is tied to gold...

free-man

Hmm.. it seems no one can explain the content of those videos.


Usually when someone posts a 'theory' the thread is over run with people debunking the "myths" and pointing to various facts and websites..

Why is this not occurring here i wonder?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

because you didnt post a 'theory' you posted a load of videos. i wuld imagine most people can't be bothered to waste hours of their life to point out the obvious to people who don't want to hear it.

Mahatma coat

Antithetic wrote: »

Why is gold more useful than curry chips?

I'm intending on spending the day playing guitar and watching TV. If I instead decide (out of thin air) to go out and work, that affects national income which is exchanged in money. If money is tied to gold...

I get accused of posting indicipherable ramblings now and again, but you sir take the cake.

I dunno bout the rest of ye but I can see gold as being a much more reliable store of Wealth than curry Feckin chips.

OP do a search we've had this topic before, theres a long thread where nothing gets answered abd a few more interestin questions are raised.

dont expect an answer from anyone in the Economics forums, they will just say yer silly and confused without actualy clarifying anything

Time Magazine

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I get accused of posting indicipherable ramblings now and again, but you sir take the cake.

I dunno bout the rest of ye but I can see gold as being a much more reliable store of Wealth than curry Feckin chips.

OP do a search we've had this topic before, theres a long thread where nothing gets answered abd a few more interestin questions are raised.

dont expect an answer from anyone in the Economics forums, they will just say yer silly and confused without actualy clarifying anything

The price of gold is as subject to the laws of supply and demand as anything else.



It's also very restricted in supply, it's far less flexible than say human labour. As I said, I could be working right now. To that end, national product (which people use money to trade in) is far more flexible than gold. So supply of labour/creation of wealth can increase more than the supply of gold. So if you tie money to gold you're left with an inadequate supply. Inadequate supply of money can be just as bad a problem as over-supply.

People say "but we used gold as the monetary base prior to the 70s." Correction: gold was used as the monetary base since the Bretton Woods conference at the end of the war. Now Berlin was divided into four jurisdictions over the same period; is the change of that necessarily bad? :pac: Moreover, there was a reason the gold standard was scrapped. It's called the Unholy Trinity. I presume you agree it's a good thing to have free capital flows. If that's the case, you then must choose between either a fixed currency or an independent monetary policy. I think we can both agree, but probably for different reasons, why having a monetary policy is better.

Mahatma coat

where I think myself and a lot of the other posters have an issue is that if gold is used a s a measure of currency/store of wealth then the system is simple and obvious to the man on the street
'I have 800 dollars, thats an ounce of gold (roughly)
gold = dollar, simple concept

I can now calculate my wealth and make comparisons to the wealth of others, we have a simple base for this economy, peoples faith in gold, a precious metal with historical precedent as a measure of wealth.

however with the National Product system its a lot more complicated

as there is no clear, this is what your money is, this is what backs it, you can take these little paper tokens and exchange them for ????????? other paper tokens

oscarBravo

Mahatma coat wrote: »

where I think myself and a lot of the other posters have an issue is that if gold is used a s a measure of currency/store of wealth then the system is simple and obvious to the man on the street

Unfortunately, what's simple and obvious to the man in the street is frequently untrue. The converse is also the case: the fact that something can't be easily understood doesn't make it untrue - take quantum mechanics, for example.

Mahatma coat

OK, in he days of the Gold standard I would have had a choice, I could use the currency in circulation to facilitate trade and as a store of my wealth, if I developed a grievance with or distrust of the banks or the money system I had the option of using gold as a viable alternative, at any stage I could 'cash out' fully into gold, and it still functioned as a currency for reasonable daily commerce.

now what do you cash out into? theres Assets, Bonds all that stuff that I will admit to knowin only small bits about, but what is actually backin the currency, besides consumer confidence and a series of debts and obligaations?

Mahatma coat

well ??

anyone gonna make a stab at answerin my question?

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK, in he days of the Gold standard I would have had a choice, I could use the currency in circulation to facilitate trade and as a store of my wealth, if I developed a grievance with or distrust of the banks or the money system I had the option of using gold as a viable alternative, at any stage I could 'cash out' fully into gold, and it still functioned as a currency for reasonable daily commerce.

You can still do that. You could invest in vintage motorcycles or a wine cellar, or comic books or any other assets.

Gold's value is still abstract, you can't eat it, it doesn't do anything, it has a value that people put upon it.

It "still" functioned as a currency maybe 200 years ago. But if you unplug your iPod, realise you're not working in a cotton gin, and get in your car you'll realise that society has moved on just a tad.

now what do you cash out into? theres Assets, Bonds all that stuff that I will admit to knowin only small bits about, but what is actually backin the currency, besides consumer confidence and a series of debts and obligaations?

Incredibly over simplistic. Look at society today. How many of us actually produce anything of tangible value at the end of our working day? We're now a service economy, most of us don't farm wheat, or make tables and chairs, or mine ore. How many of us can say at the end of the day "i made X and it's worth Y". Our assets like our products are intangible.

I'd suggest if you're so concerned and confused by this that you pick up a leaving cert economics text book, before proclaiming we need to go back to the gold standard.

Mahatma coat

My leavin cert Economics teacher wrote that book

I make stuff.

Well how do so many people say

I did X this week and got paid Y

what are rhey getting paid for, and what with?

I'm sorry that some of you find these questions simplistic, but start with the simple questions

Mahatma coat

Oh yeah, I feel somewhat sorry for you that you dont

diogeness wrote:

actually produce anything of tangible value at the end of our working day

says a lot

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Oh yeah, I feel somewhat sorry for you that you dont



says a lot

I make movies for a living Mahatma, they're not really a tangible thing, as John Boorman said "I turn money into Light".

what are rhey getting paid for, and what with?

I'm sorry that some of you find these questions simplistic, but start with the simple question

They're not simplistic they're infantile, if you want to learn about economics read about economics, don't just sit on a thread and go

"But why? I don't understand, over and over again".

Time Magazine

The cost of your unsubstantiated faith in the value of gold (if you lose faith in money and trade in, and so does everyone else, what you gonna do with that gold?) is monetary policy.

I think the ability to combat usury and stimulate economy to avoid unemployment is worth sacrificing that unsubstantiated faith.

Not to mention the fact that "legal tender" is just that: people are obliged to accept it for debts. That's pretty good backup in my mind.

free-man

Antithetic wrote: »

The price of gold is as subject to the laws of supply and demand as anything else.



It's also very restricted in supply, it's far less flexible than say human labour. As I said, I could be working right now. To that end, national product (which people use money to trade in) is far more flexible than gold. So supply of labour/creation of wealth can increase more than the supply of gold. So if you tie money to gold you're left with an inadequate supply. Inadequate supply of money can be just as bad a problem as over-supply.

People say "but we used gold as the monetary base prior to the 70s." Correction: gold was used as the monetary base since the Bretton Woods conference at the end of the war. Now Berlin was divided into four jurisdictions over the same period; is the change of that necessarily bad? :pac: Moreover, there was a reason the gold standard was scrapped. It's called the Unholy Trinity. I presume you agree it's a good thing to have free capital flows. If that's the case, you then must choose between either a fixed currency or an independent monetary policy. I think we can both agree, but probably for different reasons, why having a monetary policy is better.

Ok, points taken on the non practicality of a currency tied to gold. However what Im still skeptical of is this loan ratio whereby banks lend up to 9 times the amount they have on deposit.

Also interesting to me is that fact that if I purchase a mortgage I end up paying a multiple of that house price to a high street bank, yet the suppliers, vendors, builders etc all get paid out of the purchase price.

The people who have typed in : €500,000 into my account and paid for staff overheads have the privilege to charge me a multiple of this sum over 30 or 40 years, and this loan does not appear to need to be backed by anything of real value (gold).

I'm taking a very pragmatic approach to this viewpoint however and if someone can prove I shouldn't be skeptical I'll retain an open mind..

Time Magazine

free-man wrote: »

Ok, points taken on the non practicality of a currency tied to gold.

Hurrah! \o/

Also interesting to me is that fact that if I purchase a mortgage I end up paying a multiple of that house price to a high street bank, yet the suppliers, vendors, builders etc all get paid out of the purchase price.

The builders build for at a cost of x and charge you 1.33x (or whatever their margin is). Banks lend you 1.33x and charge you 1.6x (or whatever their margin is). This is normal.

I'm taking a very pragmatic approach to this viewpoint however and if someone can prove I shouldn't be skeptical I'll retain an open mind..

Let's consider the insurance market. If everyone in Ireland was to crash their car tomorrow, the insurance companies would go bankrupt. What are the odds of this happening? Essentially zero. If 10% of the population crashed, the companies would probably still go bankrupt. The odds of this happening are still essentially zero, too, though. There's a very small "cost" to society that if everyone crashes, we're all ****ed. I'll accept that outright.

But what are the advantages? Well if you make the fairly reasonable assumption that no more than 10% of people are going to crash in any one day, insurance firms only need to hold reserves for 10% of the value of all the cars in Ireland. This means they can charge lower premiums and this means lower prices for consumers. They make a profit and deserve it for two reasons. The first thing they're doing is managing risk, and taking on the risk that 10% of cars will crash and they'll make no money. The second is that they're providing peace of mind for people which is also important.

Consider the similar scenario with banks. It's highly unlikely that everyone will run and remove their savings tomorrow. If they do, we're all ****ed. But if you allow banks leeway in how much they'll lend, the interest rate falls. From an ethical point of view, this is good as it's the opposite of usury. In that sense, calling for a reserve ratio of 1:1 is promoting a form of usury in that it will definitely lead to significantly higher interest rates as there's less credit available. Allowing fractional reserves also stimulates the economy, so people aren't unemployed. A bit like insurance companies, banks make a profit for managing risk and providing loans to students/mortgages to newly-wedded couples etc etc etc.

You have to measure the costs and benefits of these systems and it's helpful to keep the insurance analogy in mind in this regard. I don't think any reasonable person thinks the optimal reserve fraction is 1:1. The correct level is essentially a matter for the mathematicians to work out.

Thankfully, the greedy banks actually work in the consumer's interest here. If you default on a loan, banks lose money. Look at the hit to banks' share prices over the last year for proof. So it's not in their interest to loan to unworthy customers. Similarly they can't lend money if they run out of cash, so it's not in their interests to have too few reserves. Does this reliance of the mutual interest work? Well ask yourself how many people do you know have lost money by putting it into their current accounts?

Now of course sometimes the system fails. In fact don't be surprised if one Irish bank becomes illiquid over the next six months. (Don't worry, if that happens there will be intervention to ensure nobody loses out except the bank itself.) But by and large it works extremely well and the benefits of lower interest rates are incalculable. If you're taking a dogmatic approach that lending money you don't have is immoral, well then you're taking a dogmatic approach and that allows me to take an opposing view that enforcing higher interest rates is immoral.

The final point of "backed up by something" is entirely misled. You're not seeing the broad picture. The government pay me to suggest economic policy. What determines how much I get paid? How much is that "worth"? Why is it worth more than the admin downstairs? It's interesting because if a very left-wing government got into power, I'd be let go. My advice would not fit in with their policy and is suddenly useless. It's the same guy providing the same economic analysis, but now I'm on the dole and admin are getting paid more than me. What's changed?

The answer is supply and demand. "Backed up by something" is determined only by supply and demand, which are both subject to change. If we tie it to gold and we find that the Galtee Mountains are actually made of gold, we'll have a huge inflation problem as "money" is now far more available. Sure, we can set the price of gold, but who says demand for it won't change and nobody will buy it at that price? "Backed up by something" is a load of shite because nothing is fixed. Furthermore, if you're tied to gold, you can't move interest rates to steer the economy. This is just stupid. All for what? "To be backed up" by something which isn't backed up. Once the statute exists that says legal tender must be accepted for debts, then I know the €10 in my pocket is valuable. Moreoever, the value of the €10 is set by the Central Bank and not by the chance finding of gold.

Sounds like a far better system to me.